4 ms·

> There's some serious class bias going on here. "Class bias" is a really weird word to use here to talk about that. It's class bias to assume that blue-collar

> There's some serious class bias going on here. "Class bias" is a really weird word to use here to talk about that. It's class bias to assume that blue-collar workers aren't intrinsically lazy and that they might find meaningful activities to do if they had the time/energy to do so? This is the first time I've ever seen "people need work for meaning, and they literally don't have the inclination/drive to find meaning in their lives unless they're forced to work under the threat of losing their livihoods" represented as solidarity with the working class. I don't think most people would consider that perspective to be synonymous with class consciousness.

wizofaus 4y ago
I think it's more subtle than that - I'd suggest for many of us, regardless of class, the whole reason work gives us meaning is because you know you're providing services that contribute towards society. That knowledge partly comes from seeing that the company you work for (or even run yourself) brings in at least enough revenue to pay its workers' salaries in order for them to enjoy a decent standard living. It's not so hard to believe that a future where there's simply no need for the vast majority of us to work at all will leave many of us feeling like we no longer contribute much towards society, which is likely to be at least somewhat detrimental to our sense of self-worth and purpose etc. But whether that's likely to be a widespread catastrophic issue I don't think anybody really knows. After all, for centuries the undeniable contribution women made towards society was never recognised via a pay cheque.
- neltnerb 4y ago
  Yes, this will be a major catastrophe if we don't plan ahead. I think it's coming one way or another. For an increasing number of us, the costs of automation will be lower than the cost of living. It will happen quickly. We absolutely need a serious safety net or it will be chaos. And we need to discover another way to find meaning in what we do, or else it will be a mental health catastrophe. I have thought on this long and hard and am confident I can find meaning in my life even if a computer can do what I enjoy more productively. It will take getting used to. It won't be comfortable. It is necessary. It will be very bad if only a tiny fraction of people have financial security.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
I use the term class bias mainly because I couldn't find a better term. But it is unique to a particular class to see oneself as the ideal that others are held back from reaching due to environment or circumstance. It's the reason why progressives think conservatives vote against their own interests and would see things the way progressives do if only they were better educated. It's just a fundamental inability to recognize that other people are different and aren't motivated by the same things. What's so insidious about this thinking is that its framed as benevolence. But the mistake is thinking that your way is intrinsically more valuable and so it must be a disparagement to assume that not everyone can reach the intrinsic good that you have reached. You want to see what people get up to when they have endless free time, just see what idle young men get up to. Adding on what the sibling comment said, meaning and fulfillment aren't just about the work one does, its about the social role that work facilitates. You may hate your job yet derive meaning from being a provider, from being the man of the family, being a hard worker, and so on. We're already in the process of destroying social connections with ones community and we're seeing a widespread crisis of loneliness as a result. Take away the meaning that work provides (regardless of job) and you basically destroy whats left of meaning in a good portion of people's lives.
- danShumway 4y ago
  > What's so insidious about this thinking is that its framed as benevolence. Again, I want to remind the context of this: the context is that you're saying we need to force people to work under the threat of losing their livelihood or they can't be fulfilled. And you're phrasing this as if I'm coming in and colonizing blue-collar workers or pushing my ideals on them. I don't think "benevolence" is the right word to use here, I just don't think there's anything noble about forcing people to work and saying that it's for their own good. It's an interesting turn of phrase to write about this like it's a "culture" when -- again -- the conversation is about whether or not people in blue-collar positions are too lazy and unmotivated to find meaning unless they're forced to work. I just... it's wild to hear that phrased using the terms you're using. And I wonder if those blue-collar workers would agree that guaranteed income would be "taking away" their purposes, because most of the blue-collar workers I know are much more engaged in social institutions than the white-collar workers around them, and are therefore probably more prepared to find meaning within their communities and families outside of work than the average programmer on HN is. > You want to see what people get up to when they have endless free time, just see what idle young men get up to. This is me imposing my culture on other people? Pointing out that you're basically comparing blue-collar workers to lazy youth? Come on. We derive tremendous value from blue-collar workers that hold up white-collar jobs and allow society to continue to function, even though they're often paid significantly less than us for what is arguably more important work. The least we can do is not pretend that this arrangement is somehow created for their benefit. This has all the energy of the proletariat complaining that the rabble can't take care of themselves and how the actually offensive thing is suggesting that they can. If only HN could get out of its bubble and empathize more with the average worker, then it would realize that the average worker is lazy and unmotivated and needs to be managed /s

wizofaus 4y ago

I think it's more subtle than that - I'd suggest for many of us, regardless of class, the whole reason work gives us meaning is because you know you're providing services that contribute towards society. That knowledge partly comes from seeing that the company you work for (or even run yourself) brings in at least enough revenue to pay its workers' salaries in order for them to enjoy a decent standard living. It's not so hard to believe that a future where there's simply no need for the vast majority of us to work at all will leave many of us feeling like we no longer contribute much towards society, which is likely to be at least somewhat detrimental to our sense of self-worth and purpose etc. But whether that's likely to be a widespread catastrophic issue I don't think anybody really knows. After all, for centuries the undeniable contribution women made towards society was never recognised via a pay cheque.

neltnerb 4y ago
Yes, this will be a major catastrophe if we don't plan ahead. I think it's coming one way or another. For an increasing number of us, the costs of automation will be lower than the cost of living. It will happen quickly. We absolutely need a serious safety net or it will be chaos. And we need to discover another way to find meaning in what we do, or else it will be a mental health catastrophe. I have thought on this long and hard and am confident I can find meaning in my life even if a computer can do what I enjoy more productively. It will take getting used to. It won't be comfortable. It is necessary. It will be very bad if only a tiny fraction of people have financial security.

hackinthebochs 4y ago

I use the term class bias mainly because I couldn't find a better term. But it is unique to a particular class to see oneself as the ideal that others are held back from reaching due to environment or circumstance. It's the reason why progressives think conservatives vote against their own interests and would see things the way progressives do if only they were better educated. It's just a fundamental inability to recognize that other people are different and aren't motivated by the same things. What's so insidious about this thinking is that its framed as benevolence. But the mistake is thinking that your way is intrinsically more valuable and so it must be a disparagement to assume that not everyone can reach the intrinsic good that you have reached. You want to see what people get up to when they have endless free time, just see what idle young men get up to. Adding on what the sibling comment said, meaning and fulfillment aren't just about the work one does, its about the social role that work facilitates. You may hate your job yet derive meaning from being a provider, from being the man of the family, being a hard worker, and so on. We're already in the process of destroying social connections with ones community and we're seeing a widespread crisis of loneliness as a result. Take away the meaning that work provides (regardless of job) and you basically destroy whats left of meaning in a good portion of people's lives.

danShumway 4y ago
> What's so insidious about this thinking is that its framed as benevolence. Again, I want to remind the context of this: the context is that you're saying we need to force people to work under the threat of losing their livelihood or they can't be fulfilled. And you're phrasing this as if I'm coming in and colonizing blue-collar workers or pushing my ideals on them. I don't think "benevolence" is the right word to use here, I just don't think there's anything noble about forcing people to work and saying that it's for their own good. It's an interesting turn of phrase to write about this like it's a "culture" when -- again -- the conversation is about whether or not people in blue-collar positions are too lazy and unmotivated to find meaning unless they're forced to work. I just... it's wild to hear that phrased using the terms you're using. And I wonder if those blue-collar workers would agree that guaranteed income would be "taking away" their purposes, because most of the blue-collar workers I know are much more engaged in social institutions than the white-collar workers around them, and are therefore probably more prepared to find meaning within their communities and families outside of work than the average programmer on HN is. > You want to see what people get up to when they have endless free time, just see what idle young men get up to. This is me imposing my culture on other people? Pointing out that you're basically comparing blue-collar workers to lazy youth? Come on. We derive tremendous value from blue-collar workers that hold up white-collar jobs and allow society to continue to function, even though they're often paid significantly less than us for what is arguably more important work. The least we can do is not pretend that this arrangement is somehow created for their benefit. This has all the energy of the proletariat complaining that the rabble can't take care of themselves and how the actually offensive thing is suggesting that they can. If only HN could get out of its bubble and empathize more with the average worker, then it would realize that the average worker is lazy and unmotivated and needs to be managed /s